Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than that), what that's saying is that the average user can use 1/278th of their connection. I would imagine that the overcommit rate is much higher than that.
I don't think that things should be measured like this. Throughput != bandwidth.
No, but it gives some rational way to look at it, as long as we all realize what we're talking about. The other ways I've seen it discussed mostly involve a lot of handwaving.
Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they exceed it.
And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? Think very carefully about that before you answer. If it was arranged that every customer of the ISP in question were to go to 100% utilization downloading 12G on the first of the month at 12:01AM, it seems clear to me that you could really screw up 95th.
Note: I'm assuming the quota is monthly, as it seems to be for most AU ISP's I've looked at, for example:
Yes most are monthly based on GB.
capacity is being stifled by ISP's that are stuck back in speeds (and policies) appropriate for the year 2000.
Imagine a case (even in the largest of ISP's), where there are no quotas, and everyone has a 10Mbps connection.
I'm imagining it. I've already stated that it's a problem.
I don't think there is an ISP in existence that has the infrastructure capacity to carry all of their clients using all of the connections simultaneously at full speed for long extended periods.
I'll go so far as to say that there's no real ISP in existence that could support it for any period.
As bandwidth and throughput increases, so does the strain on the networks that are upstream from the client.
Obviously.
Unless someone pays for the continuously growing data transfers, then your 6Mbps ADSL connection is fantastic, until you transit across the ISP's network who can't afford to upgrade the infrastructure because clients think they are being ripped off for paying 'extra'.
Now, at your $34/month for your resi ADSL connection, the clients call the ISP and complain about slow speeds, but when you advise that they have downloaded 90GB of movies last month and they must pay for it, they wont. Everyone wants it cheaper and cheaper, but yet expect things to work 100% of the time, and at 100% at maximum advertised capacity. My favorites are the clients who call the helpdesk and state "I'm trying to run a business here" (on their residential ADSL connection).
90GB/mo is still a relatively small amount of bandwidth. That works out to around a quarter of a megabit on average. This is nowhere near the "100%" situation you're discussing. And it's also a lot higher than the 12GB/mo quota under discussion.
What are we missing out on because ISP's are more interested in keeping bandwidth use low?
I don't think anyone wants to keep bandwidth use low, it's just in order to continue to allow bandwidth consumption to grow, someone needs to pay for it.
How about the ISP? Surely their costs are going down. Certainly I know that our wholesale bandwidth costs have dropped orders of magnitude in the last ~decade or so. Equipment does occasionally need to be replaced. I've got a nice pair of Ascend GRF400's out in the garage that cost $65K- $80K each when originally purchased. They'd be lucky to pull any number of dollars these days. It's a planned expense. As for physical plant, I'd imagine that a large amount of that is also a planned expense, and is being paid down (or already paid off), so arguing that this is somewhere that a lot of extra expense will exist is probably silly too.
What fantastic new technologies haven't been developed because they were deemed impractical given the state of the Internet?
Backbone connections worth $34/month, and infrastructure gear that upgrades itself at no cost.
Hint: that money you're collecting from your customers isn't all profit. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.